A. The Plaintiffs are the overseas Koreans of the nationality of the deceased C (C, D) (Korean nationals of the Republic of Korea of the Republic of Korea of the Republic of Korea of the Republic of Korea of the Republic of Korea of

The parent is the deceased (hereinafter referred to as “the deceased”).

From August 5, 2018, the Deceased worked in F of the cell phone sales business site E (hereinafter “instant business site”).

B. On December 15, 2018, while the Deceased completed a group of meals, etc. (hereinafter “instant group”), and driving and leaving a passenger car owned by the Deceased, the Deceased was shocked with street lights on the bend and bend by the H at the H level (hereinafter “the instant accident”), and died at the site of the accident due to a multi-scopic long-term wave.

(c)

The Plaintiffs asserted that the deceased’s death constitutes occupational accidents since they died during the time of their insular session, and applied for the payment of the bereaved family’s benefits and funeral expenses to the Defendant.

On March 5, 2019, the Defendant: “The instant meeting was held by G and sons of the business owner at the instant meeting.”

Inasmuch as I’s employees were present and other workers who were working in the instant workplace with the Deceased did not attend a meeting, the said group determined that the deceased’s death was not a common sense under the business owner’s control and management, and determined that the deceased’s death was not a commuting accident (hereinafter “instant disposition”).

(d)

Although the Plaintiffs were dissatisfied with the instant disposition, the Defendant dismissed the Plaintiffs’ request for examination on July 22, 2019 for the same reasons as the instant disposition.

Facts without dispute, Gap's evidence of Nos. 1, 4, and 7, and Eul's evidence of No. 1 through 3, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The gist of the plaintiffs' assertion is G, and even if it is not possible to see it, G may not be denied that it had been engaged in the duties of the deceased.

In addition, the workplace of this case.